ladner
Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001 From: Virginia USA Status: offline
|
Well since we have mentioned a game with all of World War II, I for one would like to see it. Further since Hearts of Iron (HOI) was mentioned, I think there are aspects from HOI that I think are worthwhile to incorporate into a game. I noticed that many of the features of GGWaW and the sequel are borrowed from HOI, such as the newly implemented espionage. I know that it is difficult to make comparrisons with HOI and WitP since WitP is a much more complex game. I would like to see a research and development model that is similar to HOI, in that you have a technology tree. However, unlike HOI, where you have generic models for all combatants I would like the tech tree, where you could develop historical models, and also what-if equipment. Another element, would be to have major industrial concerns represented within the game. Using Focke Wulf, as an example, you would have Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG, instead of having the micromanagement of individual factories, you as the CINC, would establish a level of funding for Focke-Wulf, this level of funding would govern the output of Focke-Wulf factories and aircraft, it would also impact R&D, so if you elevate Focke-Wulf funding at the expense of Messerschmidt, yes you will get more Fw-190s, and maybe even an earlier Ta-152, however, the cut Messerschmidt funding would impact the ability to obtain Me-262's. Continuing, with Focke Wulf a good example of a what if aircraft is the Fw-187 Falke (Falcon), which was preferred by pilots over the Me-110C, and when it was designed has a max speed 50 mph greater than the Me-109B, despite the fact that the Fw-187 was a significantly larger and heavier aircraft. Given a majorly overhauled and revised WitP engine covering the all of WW2, it would be interesting to see how such a plane would have faired in the Battle of Britian. As the head of state you would have production/R&D priorities for the different services branches of armed forces and the associated companies that handle production. In terms of R&D, not many games do a good job of capturing the constant escalation caused by the gun/armor race between Germany, the USSR, and the US/UK. Also another area was the constant race to seek more powerful aircraft engines, which led to the ushering of the jet age. Another aspect is the long lead time between the development of a prototype and a working combat system. There are of course some phenomenal exceptions such as how the Soviet La-5, was developed by Lavochkin without official sanction, yet ended up being one of the better Soviet fighter planes. In terms of technology there would be applied and theoretical research: applied would be weapon systems and tied to individual companies, and have the ability to provide 'grants' or subsidies. theoretical would be electronics-> RADAR, ASDIC, signals, gun fire control for capital ships rocketry -> solid state rockets, could to lead to spin-offs like Fritz-X, and HS-293, and possible SAMs, air-to-air missles and air-to-surface missles armament -> although more of an applied area, but somehow have a method to capture the gun race, for example 2 pdr, 6 pdr, 17 pdr. Furthermore, for navies AAA armament race, using the USN as an example .50 cal MG, to 1.1 inch gun, to 20 mm Oerkilon, to 40mm Bofors gun, 5"/38 DP to the final 5"/54 DP gun. Another aspect would be setting national economic policies, for example Japan and Germany failed to rationalize and centralize their industries until it was too late. For example Japan did not make an effort to have a Munitions Ministry until 1943 at which point there was a substantial increase in aircraft output, I will have to dig up my book on the Air War by Overy to get the exact numbers. Anyhow, I like how GGWaW, seems to have this built in, since the Allies and the Russians get more out of their production as the war footing level increases, and at some point so does Germany. Unlike the current WitP model were all factories have the same output level based upon having adequate resource input. Another area, and this is were I think HOI shines is in the area of diplomacy and trade. There should be some manner of negotiating diplomacy and trade deals, either with neutrals, or putting out peace feelers with belligerent nations. Recently in a library I recalled skimming a book by a Russian author about the first couple of weeks of Barbarrossa, interestingly enough he mentioned that Stalin put out peace feelers with the Germans in October of 1941. Granted there are some states were peace agreements should be highly unlikely, Hitler bent on world conquest, Allies 'unconditional surrender' doctrine. I imagine that some will cry foul, or say some of these things make the wargame 'gamey' and not a simulation, but for myself I would really like to see the ablitiy to have 'what if's' of course there could be a mechanism like political points, or a similar correllarly, like influence points to maintain some level of game 'balance' and keep things with a historical context. In my mind, playing any World War II game against a competent opponent as the Axis should be a major challenge, most of the time as the Axis you should loose. The Axis powers, mistakenly believed that their individual marial prowness could overcome the economic might of the Allies, this was a flawed premise, there were instances were Axis operational brillance lead to significant defeats for the Allies, but ultimately even if playing a realistic simulation and avoiding operational disasters such as Stalingrad or Midway. Even when Axis powers recognized the economic nature of the war it was too little too late. Interestingly enough, I read were some 'rationalized' the Japanese aircraft industry, and was 'winning' a war of attrition against the USN, since the USN was not receiving enough F6F Hellcat fighters, of course this probably a consequence of the lack of control of production for the Allies. Anyhow, I have more ideas, of course ideas are cheap, compared to making the idea a reality. But if anyone has interest I will go into more depth.
< Message edited by ladner -- 7/31/2006 9:23:03 PM >
|